But if the item being patented isn't substantially different or an improvement in some aspect of the prior art then it is not a valid patent. The real point is you need lots of dollars to contend against them.
Another point is that you can in turn make substantial improvements on processes that they patent, which are patentable in their own right. You might also create entirely different mechanisms to do the same thing and so not infringe on their patent..
Software patents may suck, but they also are reality. You have to defend yourselves by either creating your own patent portfolio (and patents are really only worth something if the right patent attorneys did the work) and also must defend that portfolio (by being litigious)...
Alternately, you may publicly document all ideas to prevent new patents from being accepted. And the documentation of those ideas must be in forums that the patent office will notice in evaluating claims... Otherwise, it will require litigation to expose your work as prior art. (Meaning, i don't think the patent office will search JDEV or other online forums to test claims prior to making its decisions.)
Frank
Bart van Bragt wrote:
Don't patents become void when there has been prior art? I saw some
people that mentioned prior art on slashdot?Richard Dobson wrote:
> Microsoft Patenting IM Translation?
> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/03/1759201.shtml?tid=155&tid=99
>
> Looks like we might not be able to do this now.This proves (again) that software patents just plain suck :\
Bart
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
